On 04/01/08 at 21:47 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >> I rebuilt all packages in Debian, first with bash as /bin/sh, then with dash >> as >> /bin/sh. Your package builds fine in both cases. However, the resulting >> packages are diferent according to debdiff! > > The actual problem was caused by bashisms in the upstream installer script > which is fixed in the new upstream version which was just uploaded (well, > I'm also upstream ;-)). > > While I regard the bug as fixed with the latest upload I wonder whether > the two explicite usages of /bin/bash in postinst / prerm are a problem: > > Quoting > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2008/01/03.dash-different/dash/fortunes-de_0.23-1_sid32.buildlog > > size 1068538 bytes: control archive= 5877 bytes. > 592 bytes, 22 lines * config #!/bin/sh > 446 bytes, 12 lines control > 7799 bytes, 107 lines md5sums > 2200 bytes, 116 lines * postinst #!/bin/bash > 206 bytes, 8 lines * postrm #!/bin/sh > 459 bytes, 15 lines * preinst #!/bin/sh > 1238 bytes, 67 lines * prerm #!/bin/bash > 2078 bytes, 29 lines templates > > I verified that /bin/bash is really needed and found that these > scripts are using a feature that dash does not seem to know. So if > bash should really be avoided a heavy rewrite of the scripts would > be needed. What do you think about this?
Hi Andreas, The problem is with script asking for /bin/sh, but needing /bin/bash. If the script asks for bash, there's no problem. bash will stay a required package. The point is to allow to replace /bin/sh with dash, since it's much faster. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
